how to write research project proposal
Post on 02-Apr-2016
237 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
HOW TO WRITE
RESEARCH PROJECT
PROPOSAL
What is research?
Research is the systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of data to answer a certain question or solve a problem
What is a scientific project proposal?
A request for financial assistance to implement a scientific project (inspired from [Belmain, 2012])
Why write research proposals?
To have money to do research and
give your contribution to
understanding the world
(Scientific career: should be
centered in the creation of
knowledge)
Why write research proposals?
Important indicator of external
approval of your activities
Raise your academic prestige
Increase the number of scientific
publications
1. To maintain the quality of teaching programs.
2. Provide the basis for undergraduate and graduate
thesis research projects.
3. Universities should be more than degree
delivering institutions.
4. Universities should be the basket for new
knowledge and developments.
Why is the development of research within universities a must ?
What to investigate in a project?
• A new idea, e.g., a first solution to an impacting problem
• A better solution to a known problem
– E.g., a better‐performing algorithm (accuracy,
speed, etc.)
• Multidisciplinary ideas
• Knowledge gaps
What makes a good scientific project proposal?
Key questions (adapted and extended from [Cardoso,2012)
1. Is the research new?
2. Is the research significant to the field of research?
3. Does it clearly motivate and clearly formulate the research question?
4. Does it outline the current knowledge of the problem domain, as well as the state of existing solutions?
5. Does it present clearly any preliminary ideas, the proposed approach and the results achieved so far?
What makes a good scientific project proposal?
Key questions;
6. Does it sketch the research methodology that will be applied?
7. Does it point out the contributions of the applicant to the problem solution?
8. Does it state in what aspects the suggested solution will be different, new or better as compared to existing approaches to the problem?
9. Does it state how the expected results will be evaluated or compared to existing approaches to the problem?
10.Does it state how and by whom the expected results can be applied?
Budget Your Time
80% planning the project 20% writing the proposal
Solid partnerships
Innovative
project
Communicate
Define your
budget
Preliminary Work
Sections of the Proposal
Summary Hypothesis Bakcground
Methods Budget Management
Research Topic
Selection of research topic is based on
the SMART concept:
S = Specific.
M = Measurable.
A = Achievable.
R = Realistic.
T = Time specific
Title of Research Project
Good
Concise title that gives reviewer a general sense of what you are investigating.
For example:
Understanding the role anti-cell death protein BNIP3 plays in brain cancers.
Title of Research Project
Reject
Too long and technical of a title will not gain the reviewer’s attention or interest.
Too short and broad a title will make the reviewer too critical of grant.
Example:
Determining the mechanism of action of Bcl-2 family members in regulating apoptotic signaling complexes within the mitochondria leading to a cure in cancers.
Non-Scientific Summary
Good
This is used for press releases.
Avoid acronyms
Clearly state why this project is important.
Declare the impact this research will have on cancer or other diseases.
Give it to a non-research friend to read.
Reject
Using technical language is a negative.
Do not use acronyms even if you define them.
Summary of Research Proposal
Good give a short but informative background to
justify the research hypothesis and objectives. Clearly state the hypothesis. State the objectives and/or aims of this
proposal. State the impact, significance and innovation in
this proposal. Define acronyms as much as possible.
Reject Technical and condensed phrasing of the
project. No clear statement of what is the purpose of
this study.
Tip
Ask a colleague to read the
abstract. If the abstract is well
written, they should be able to
understand the essence of the
project from the abstract.
Summary of Research Proposal
Details of Research Proposal
Order of Proposal:
Goals or objectives of proposal
Background
Rationale and hypothesis.
Specific Aims
Rationale
Hypothesis (optional)
Approach
Expected Results
Pitfalls or Alternative approaches.
Significance and/or Impact of this proposal.
Goals and/or Objectives of Research
Good
This is usually one paragraph telling the reviewer everything they need to know about this research proposal.
This provides the opportunity to gain the reviewers interest and excitement about this proposal.
It should contain the background on why this research is important, hypothesis, and objectives.
Should state the innovation of this proposal.
Finally it should in a clear statement demonstrate why this project is significant and what impact it will have.
Reject
No goal or objective statement at the start of the proposal.
Too technical and condensed will make it hard to read and understand.
Too short will not give the reviewer the needed information to understand the proposal.
Too long will make the reviewer skip to the background and makes the reviewer search for what is important.
Goals and/or Objectives of Research
Background
Good
Give the reviewer the needed information to understand the objectives and approaches in this proposal.
Structure the background to go from broad information such as cancer kills Canadians to specific information such as my protein is increased in solid tumors.
Build up the background towards answering a specific question that is unknown.
Background
Good
There should be section within the background to discuss preliminary data.
Connect preliminary data to background.
If limited preliminary data, spend time on the innovation such as using unique resources at CCMB for this proposal.
Background
Reject
Do not expand background to unnecessary information that does not support the hypothesis.
Background should not exceed one third to one half of proposal.
No preliminary data generally negatively impacts the proposal in two ways.
No indication that the proposal will feasible.
No indication the applicant can do the proposed work.
Rationale and Hypothesis.
Good
Clearly state the hypothesis or number of hypotheses that will be addressed in the proposal.
Give a rationale why this hypothesis is important to investigate.
Reject
Avoid combining the two together. It could be confusing to the reviewer.
Too long of a hypothesis makes it hard to understand the aim of the research.
Specific Aims
Good
Limit specific aims to 2-3.
Make sure controls are added to approaches taken.
Always give what your expected results will be.
Always give alternative approaches since pitfalls happen.
Address feasibility if you have not demonstrated that you can do the experiments proposed.
Specific Aims
Address innovation wherever possible.
Justify the use of specific reagents or animal models.
For example:
If you use a cell line why that cell line
If you use an animal model why that animal model.
Confirm results with multiple approaches.
Make aim 1 less risky compared to other aims.
Specific Aims
Reject
Many specific aims is bad. This is a two year proposal and if it is too ambitious, will negatively impact on reviewers.
Avoid to many specifics on experiments.
Structure aims so that aim 2 is not dependent on aim 1.
Do not avoid issues within the field of research
Using cell lines for genetic studies is not the same as primary cancer cells and might yield misleading information. Tell the review you understand the limitations and how to address it.
Methods
This section of your proposal has multiple parts Design
Sample/Sample size
Setting
Protocol
Analysis Plan
Detailed enough so that the reviewers could conduct the study
Methods - Design
Describe your study design Design examples
Prospective vs. Retrospective Descriptive Observation Intervention clinical trial Surveys, interviews, questionnaires Focus groups, field studies Others
Example We plan a prospective randomized controlled
trial of meditative music vs. no music
Methods – Sample/Sample Size
Who are the study participants?
Describe inclusion criteria
Example: Adult men and women inpatients with stage IV heart disease
Who is excluded?
Example: Patients who do not speak English
Methods – Sample cont’d
How will participants be recruited?
Convenience sample
Flyers in research offices
Advertisements
Electronic Records search
How many participants are needed?
How will you justify the sample size?
Has there been a power analysis?
Do you have a comparison or control group?
Definition of variables
Measurement of observations
Describe how, when and where the observations are made? Describe instruments used!
Questionaire (attach to the protocol)
Type of interview (describe structure of the interview)
Laboratory test (refer to literature or personal knowledge, if established test, or describe in detail, if not established)
Clinical examinations (describe gadget/procedure)
Data management and analysis
Based on objectives consider:
Coding for variables/ type of variables
Analysis plan depending on type of variables
Statistical tests implicated
(Style of presentation i.e. tables, graphs)
Data safety and storage
Significance and Impact
Good Last chance to impress the reviewer on the
importance of what you are proposing.
Give a sense of future directions for this research.
Why is this proposal innovative?
Impact on the field and/or on the disease being studied should be stated.
Reject
No significance statement.
Superficial such as this will cure cancer.
References/Bibliography
Use of standard referencing system: Harvard style
Name and publication year in text Alphabetical bibliography
Vancouver style Numbered references Continous referencing in text
Make use of software Reference Manager Endnote software
Budget:
Good
Give a detailed account of where you will be spending the money.
Approximately one third of the budget should go to supplies.
Reject
Graduate students should not be used in budget support since it is an easy target for reduction due to alternative funding sources.
Do not justify spending all the budget on personnel.
All other Operating Grants
Good
Declare all operating grants.
Declare 0% or 100% overlap.
In this granting environment it is reasonable to apply from multiple sources to get funding.
Reject
Do not state 25-50% overlap with operating grant.
The review committee going to treat this grant as 100% overlap.
Setting
Describe the sites where you plan to conduct the study
Do you have support from the administration of the site to conduct the study?
Letters of support from site
Protocol
What are you going to do to study participants?
Detailed, step by step explanation
Include how you will identify participants, obtain consent, and collect data
If there is an intervention, describe it in detail
Will you use measurement tools? Describe the tools, including reliability and validity and include a copy of the tools with your proposal
Include the time frame for implementing the study
Timeline
Describe how long it will take to do your study
Provide timeline benchmarks
Example:
Months 1 – 3 Prepare study tools
Months 4-10 Collect data
Months 11-12 Analyze data
Example Project
STDF format
Common pitfalls to avoid
Missing aims or purpose
Not enough detail about protocol
Write your proposal so anyone reading it can understand your plan
Is your study significant?
Does it answer the larger “So what” question? Why should researchers care about this work?
Underpowered sample size
Describe why you are using the sample size and justify it
Invalid or unreliable instrumentation
Has your instrument been tested with the population you are studying? If not, will you test it within your study?
Improper statistics
Are you using the appropriate statistical analysis?
Resources Page
Summary of physical space, equipment, personnel, & other resources essential to study completion
Letters of support required for shared resources critical to proposed work
Justify reliance on external resources
http://stdf-egypt.org/ for STDF of egypt
http://www.kacst.edu.sa/ar/Pages/default.aspx kind abdulaziz city for science and technology
Further reading
• A. Yavuz Oruc (2011). “Handbook of Scientific Proposal Writing”,
Chapman and Hall/CRC
– A. Yavuz Oruc (2011). “Handbook of Scientific Proposal
Writing”,Chapman and Hall/CRC
– FP7 (2012). “Template for Description of Work”, Microsoft Word
document
– Belmain S. (2012). “How to write a scientific proposal: Responding
to competitive calls”, Presentation, URL:
http://www.nri.org/projects/adappt/docs/McKnight/WritingGrantPr
oposals.pdf
– TURBO (2010). “How to start a successful proposal under FP7?”,
Presentation, Turkish Research and Business Organizations, URL:
http://www.turboppp.org/home.do;jsessionid=298565811203FFEA0
FB0326BE9D8598F?ot=5&rt=10&sid=0&pid=0&cid=9429
top related